[Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
25 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

David Monniaux-2
Geni said:
> >/ To me, these include, among others://
/>/ * military operations and hardware
/
> US military photos and trade fairs. Also various open days. About the
> only think you won't get is NK stuff such as Ch'onma-ho

So, only US hardware and activities. So much for NPOV. (There are tons of interesting things
that you won't see unless you're in operations. Trade fairs will show only small arms.)

>/ * spacecraft
/
> NASA for a lot of stuff and countries tend to put a lot of their space
> hardware on display

NASA => only US

You've therefore made the point that our current policies favor the broadcasting of the
activities of the US government. So much for NPOV. :-)


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

Gregory Maxwell
On 2/8/07, David Monniaux <[hidden email]> wrote:
> You've therefore made the point that our current policies favor the broadcasting of the
> activities of the US government. So much for NPOV. :-)

Lets pretend for a moment that the Republic of Iceland had a fantastic
space program, but they kept it utterly secret because they are afraid
that that Norway would take credit for it anyways.

  Would we be violating NPOV because our lack of knowledge of the
program prevented us from giving it coverage equal to the coverage we
give NASA?

I don't think that it does... and to whatever extent that it does, I
think we would do well to look at Iceland as the cause rather than
Wikipedia.

I do not see how the real situation with the ESA could be any worse.
At least we can still write articles about their activities since they
are not secret. We are only limited in the media  which they do not
release freely.

The ESA has chosen a copyright policy which limits the freedom the
world can take with work, presumably they have good reasons for this,
but their decisions have negative consequences as well.  One of those
negative consequences is a reduction in how widespread information of
their work can travel, and Wikipedia is just a single symptom of that.

I also don't see this as any different to the fact that most of our
astronomical photographs are from NASA, while there are many
University and private telescope's whos works we do not use because
they are not released freely. Are we promoting NASA because we use
their pictures more often than pictures which are not freely release?
... Perhaps,  but since free content is our mission, I think that if
there is any promotion of sources of free content, it is both
unavoidable and not a bad thing.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

Robert S. Horning
In reply to this post by David Monniaux-2
David Monniaux wrote:

>>US military photos and trade fairs. Also various open days. About the
>>only think you won't get is NK stuff such as Ch'onma-ho
>>    
>>
>
>So, only US hardware and activities. So much for NPOV. (There are tons of interesting things
>that you won't see unless you're in operations. Trade fairs will show only small arms.)
>  
>
>>/ * spacecraft
>>    
>>
>/
>  
>
>>NASA for a lot of stuff and countries tend to put a lot of their space
>>hardware on display
>>    
>>
>
>NASA => only US
>
>You've therefore made the point that our current policies favor the broadcasting of the
>activities of the US government. So much for NPOV. :-)
>  
>
Perhaps there is some merit to the philosohpy that the U.S. Federal
Government has that all of its publications are released to the public
domain.  What value crown copyright actually gives the government in the
UK is beyond me, but perhaps by showing some of the other governments
that they don't need to be so paranoid about copyright (including many
U.S. state governments) and trying to milk every last drop of money from
content produced by salaried employees of these governments that perhaps
there are some strong benefits to their own citizens and to their
country as a whole if they would "lighten up" and allow some sort of
free usage of this sort of content.

Is NASA really the only national space agency that releases images that
can be used under terms compatable with the GFDL and Wikimedia Commons
restrictions?  I know ESA releases their images under a non-commercial
use only license, but there have been attempts to try and open that
licensing up a bit more to something more akin to the standard CC-by-SA
type license.

--
Robert Scott Horning



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

Yonatan Horan
In reply to this post by David Monniaux-2
It isn't quite WMF's fault that other countries don't release their pictures
under free licenses (or like the US into the public domain).  You could just
as well say that because enwp uses English sources it is biased towards the
US\UK and therefore is not NPOV. No encyclopedia in the world is NPOV going
by the same standards because they don't really go to North Korea and take
photos there nor do they get a North Korean writer to write some parts of
articles regarding NK. NPOV is the sublime ideal we should all strive for
but in order to further one ideal, you sometimes have to give up another and
in this case when you look at both sides I think it's a no-brainer.

Yonatan

On 2/9/07, David Monniaux <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Geni said:
> > >/ To me, these include, among others://
> />/ * military operations and hardware
> /
> > US military photos and trade fairs. Also various open days. About the
> > only think you won't get is NK stuff such as Ch'onma-ho
>
> So, only US hardware and activities. So much for NPOV. (There are tons of
> interesting things
> that you won't see unless you're in operations. Trade fairs will show only
> small arms.)
>
> >/ * spacecraft
> /
> > NASA for a lot of stuff and countries tend to put a lot of their space
> > hardware on display
>
> NASA => only US
>
> You've therefore made the point that our current policies favor the
> broadcasting of the
> activities of the US government. So much for NPOV. :-)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

geni
On 2/9/07, Yonatan Horan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> It isn't quite WMF's fault that other countries don't release their pictures
> under free licenses (or like the US into the public domain).  You could just
> as well say that because enwp uses English sources it is biased towards the
> US\UK and therefore is not NPOV. No encyclopedia in the world is NPOV going
> by the same standards because they don't really go to North Korea and take
> photos there nor do they get a North Korean writer to write some parts of
> articles regarding NK.

En managed the next best thing.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by David Monniaux-2
David Monniaux wrote:

>Geni said:
>  
>
>>>/ To me, these include, among others://
>>>      
>>>
>/>/ * military operations and hardware
>  
>
>>US military photos and trade fairs. Also various open days. About the
>>only think you won't get is NK stuff such as Ch'onma-ho
>>    
>>
>So, only US hardware and activities. So much for NPOV. (There are tons of interesting things
>that you won't see unless you're in operations. Trade fairs will show only small arms.)
>  
>
>>/ * spacecraft
>>    
>>
>>NASA for a lot of stuff and countries tend to put a lot of their space
>>hardware on display
>>    
>>
>NASA => only US
>
>You've therefore made the point that our current policies favor the broadcasting of the
>activities of the US government. So much for NPOV. :-)
>
As much as I enjoy blaming the United States for most of the world's
ills, this is one point where that would have no justification.

If the Europeans want to whinge about the availability of American
material being a violation of NPOV they have one excellent solution:
Make their own material free.

Ec


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

David Strauss-4
Not only do I agree, but I believe a similar issue surrounds fair use.
Accusations of U.S. centrism are indefensible when they're based on
restrictive laws in non-U.S. countries.

Now, that doesn't mean there aren't practical advantages to
accommodating other countries' needs, but the lack of doing so is hardly
"U.S. centrism."

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> As much as I enjoy blaming the United States for most of the world's
> ills, this is one point where that would have no justification.
>
> If the Europeans want to whinge about the availability of American
> material being a violation of NPOV they have one excellent solution:
> Make their own material free.
>
> Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

geni
On 2/11/07, David Strauss <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Not only do I agree, but I believe a similar issue surrounds fair use.
> Accusations of U.S. centrism are indefensible when they're based on
> restrictive laws in non-U.S. countries.
>
> Now, that doesn't mean there aren't practical advantages to
> accommodating other countries' needs, but the lack of doing so is hardly
> "U.S. centrism."
>

The problem with that is the logical end point of that position is the
move the foundation and servers to Iran. There are a number of items
that are public domain in their home country but not in the US that we
as a result we do not accept. US laws are liberal in one area but in
others not so much.  Assuming shortest possible term sound recordings
in the US are protected for 20 years longer than they are in the UK.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

rfrangi@libero.it
In reply to this post by David Strauss-4
< David Strauss wrote:

> Not only do I agree, but I believe a similar issue surrounds fair use.
> Accusations of U.S. centrism are indefensible when they're based on
> restrictive laws in non-U.S. countries.
>
> Now, that doesn't mean there aren't practical advantages to
> accommodating other countries' needs, but the lack of doing so is hardly
> "U.S. centrism."

You see, when we decided to accept images "used with permission" and or with the NC clause, it was done for the very same reasons on en.wiki copyrighted material is used claiming fair use. This is our workaround for not being able to claim fair use, in fact, you will notice that there are cases in which the same image appears on en.wiki with the fair use template and on it.wiki with the "used with permission" or NC template.

That's the reason why, when we are told we should remove those images, but on en.wiki fair use is just ok, people get pissed and obviously talks about U.S. centrism.

In this thread someone said that renounce to fair use would be  an intollerable limitation to the freedom of speech. The way we use NC and "used with permission" images is by any respect equivalent to the way you use copyrighted material claiming fair use.

So in the end having to phase out those images, for us, is an intollerable limitation to our freedom of speech.

Roberto (Snowdog)


------------------------------------------------------
Passa a Infostrada. ADSL e Telefono senza limiti e senza canone Telecom
http://click.libero.it/infostrada12feb07



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

Gregory Maxwell
On 2/11/07, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
> You see, when we decided to accept images "used with permission" and or with the NC clause, it was done for the very same reasons on en.wiki copyrighted material is used claiming fair use. This is our workaround for not being able to claim fair use, in fact, you will notice that there are cases in which the same image appears on en.wiki with the fair use template and on it.wiki with the "used with permission" or NC template.
>
> That's the reason why, when we are told we should remove those images, but on en.wiki fair use is just ok, people get pissed and obviously talks about U.S. centrism.
>
> In this thread someone said that renounce to fair use would be  an intollerable limitation to the freedom of speech. The way we use NC and "used with permission" images is by any respect equivalent to the way you use copyrighted material claiming fair use.
>
> So in the end having to phase out those images, for us, is an intollerable limitation to our freedom of speech.

This is not the case at all.. You can continue to accept "with
permissions" images, so long as they would also qualify as Fair Use.

If what you are saying is completely true, that you only use "with
permissions" because there is no fair use in your local law then no
images would need to be deleted at all.

However, this does not appear to be the case on itwiki:
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:PuntanoQui/Template:Copyrighted

Where very many of these images could have be recreated as free works
by anyone.. many of them are even the works of wikipedians but they
are not released as free content.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

jkelly-2
Quoting Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]>:

> However, this does not appear to be the case on itwiki:
> http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:PuntanoQui/Template:Copyrighted
>
> Where very many of these images could have be recreated as free works
> by anyone.. many of them are even the works of wikipedians but they
> are not released as free content.

That's disappointing to read.  I imagine, however, that this also happens on
projects disallowing "permission only for Wikipedia" but allowing fair use.

                Jkelly






_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

Piero Grandesso
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
Gregory Maxwell ha scritto:
> However, this does not appear to be the case on itwiki:
> http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:PuntanoQui/Template:Copyrighted
>
> Where very many of these images could have be recreated as free works
> by anyone.. many of them are even the works of wikipedians but they
> are not released as free content.
>
>  

Ok, I think that we need to substitute all the "images with permission"
with "free content" images whenever it is possible, and I think we all
agree with it.
I believe that the problems are only for useful images that aren't
available with a free license (or that we can't create by ourselves,
there's a ton of that kinds of images even on it.wiki).

My doubt is: do we risk anything by uploading images with permission
that someone else on Wikipedia will tag as fair-use? I fear it won't be
legally acceptable (or at least who has given the permission will retire
it immediately) - I don't have an idea, since I'm not a lawyer.

piero tasso



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
In reply to this post by geni
geni wrote:

> On 2/11/07, David Strauss <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Not only do I agree, but I believe a similar issue surrounds fair use.
>> Accusations of U.S. centrism are indefensible when they're based on
>> restrictive laws in non-U.S. countries.
>>
>> Now, that doesn't mean there aren't practical advantages to
>> accommodating other countries' needs, but the lack of doing so is hardly
>> "U.S. centrism."
>>
>
> The problem with that is the logical end point of that position is the
> move the foundation and servers to Iran.
>
We'd have to remove all the images of people.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

signature.asc (554 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

Gerard Meijssen-3
Alphax (Wikipedia email) schreef:

> geni wrote:
>  
>> On 2/11/07, David Strauss <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>    
>>> Not only do I agree, but I believe a similar issue surrounds fair use.
>>> Accusations of U.S. centrism are indefensible when they're based on
>>> restrictive laws in non-U.S. countries.
>>>
>>> Now, that doesn't mean there aren't practical advantages to
>>> accommodating other countries' needs, but the lack of doing so is hardly
>>> "U.S. centrism."
>>>
>>>      
>> The problem with that is the logical end point of that position is the
>> move the foundation and servers to Iran.
>>
>>    
>
> We'd have to remove all the images of people.
Hoi,
To me, this sounds like a complete absurd assertion.. what do you base
THAT on ?
Thanks,
    GerardM

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

David Strauss-4
In reply to this post by geni
geni wrote:

> On 2/11/07, David Strauss <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Not only do I agree, but I believe a similar issue surrounds fair use.
>> Accusations of U.S. centrism are indefensible when they're based on
>> restrictive laws in non-U.S. countries.
>>
>> Now, that doesn't mean there aren't practical advantages to
>> accommodating other countries' needs, but the lack of doing so is hardly
>> "U.S. centrism."
>
> The problem with that is the logical end point of that position is the
> move the foundation and servers to Iran.

That's absurd. How does one go from "not changing to accommodate
restrictive laws from other countries is not U.S. centrism" to "we must
move our servers to Iran"?

I'm arguing that we should weigh the advantages of accommodating foreign
restrictions (further reach) with the disadvantages of changing the
content (esp. censorship). If we happen to decide that accommodating a
restriction isn't worth the changes to content, then we're still not
guilty of U.S. centrism. Accommodating Iran's requirements is clearly
out of the question.


U.S. centrism is borne of ignorance or willful exclusion. Neither is the
case here.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

geni
On 2/12/07, David Strauss <[hidden email]> wrote:

> geni wrote:
> > On 2/11/07, David Strauss <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> Not only do I agree, but I believe a similar issue surrounds fair use.
> >> Accusations of U.S. centrism are indefensible when they're based on
> >> restrictive laws in non-U.S. countries.
> >>
> >> Now, that doesn't mean there aren't practical advantages to
> >> accommodating other countries' needs, but the lack of doing so is hardly
> >> "U.S. centrism."
> >
> > The problem with that is the logical end point of that position is the
> > move the foundation and servers to Iran.
>
> That's absurd. How does one go from "not changing to accommodate
> restrictive laws from other countries is not U.S. centrism" to "we must
> move our servers to Iran"?
>

You want minimum restrictions with regard to copyright that is the
correct course of action.

> I'm arguing that we should weigh the advantages of accommodating foreign
> restrictions

Try again this time try not to think so americano centric

>(further reach) with the disadvantages of changing the
> content (esp. censorship). If we happen to decide that accommodating a
> restriction isn't worth the changes to content, then we're still not
> guilty of U.S. centrism. Accommodating Iran's requirements is clearly
> out of the question.
>

So not copyright on items produced outside Iran doesn't appeal? Well
Ok then how about move commons to the UK? At least one type of item
enters the public domain there well before ti does in the US. Sure it
might be a good idea to win a Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp case
first but that should be doable.


>
> U.S. centrism is borne of ignorance or willful exclusion. Neither is the
> case here.

Then try and think why when dealing with the option of moving the
foundation to somewhere with the most liberal copyright laws on an
international mailing list why using the term "foreign restrictions"
isn't exactly ideal phrasing.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

rfrangi@libero.it
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:

> This is not the case at all.. You can continue to accept "with
> permissions" images, so long as they would also qualify as Fair Use.
>
> If what you are saying is completely true, that you only use "with
> permissions" because there is no fair use in your local law then no
> images would need to be deleted at all.
>
> However, this does not appear to be the case on itwiki:
> http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:PuntanoQui/Template:Copyrighted
>
> Where very many of these images could have be recreated as free works
> by anyone.. many of them are even the works of wikipedians but they
> are not released as free content.

Ok. A partial cleanup like you propose is different from the "remove all" we have understood up to now.

Roberto (Snowdog)


------------------------------------------------------
Passa a Infostrada. ADSL e Telefono senza limiti e senza canone Telecom
http://click.libero.it/infostrada12feb07



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

David Strauss-4
In reply to this post by geni
geni wrote:

> On 2/12/07, David Strauss <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> That's absurd. How does one go from "not changing to accommodate
>> restrictive laws from other countries is not U.S. centrism" to "we must
>> move our servers to Iran"?
>>
>
> You want minimum restrictions with regard to copyright that is the
> correct course of action.
>
>> I'm arguing that we should weigh the advantages of accommodating foreign
>> restrictions
>
> Try again this time try not to think so americano centric
>
>> (further reach) with the disadvantages of changing the
>> content (esp. censorship). If we happen to decide that accommodating a
>> restriction isn't worth the changes to content, then we're still not
>> guilty of U.S. centrism. Accommodating Iran's requirements is clearly
>> out of the question.
>>
>
> So not copyright on items produced outside Iran doesn't appeal? Well
> Ok then how about move commons to the UK? At least one type of item
> enters the public domain there well before ti does in the US. Sure it
> might be a good idea to win a Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp case
> first but that should be doable.
>
>
>> U.S. centrism is borne of ignorance or willful exclusion. Neither is the
>> case here.
>
> Then try and think why when dealing with the option of moving the
> foundation to somewhere with the most liberal copyright laws on an
> international mailing list why using the term "foreign restrictions"
> isn't exactly ideal phrasing.
There's simply no way I can discuss this issue with you unless you're
willing to adopt a more holistic consideration of Wikipedia's needs.
Your arguments are trapped in the consideration of the *one* idea you
seem to support, which is restricting Wikipedia content to what may be
republished in *your* country.

Nowhere in my post did I mention copyright, yet you framed my argument
as if copyright were its only consideration. You straw-manned my
argument by ignoring aspects of the balance I proposed -- most notably
ignoring censorship -- that didn't fit nearly within your pet issue.

Finally, you invoked a false slippery slope by stating my argument leads
to hosting Wikipedia in Iran. Only your imaginary, straw-manned version
of my argument has that flaw.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

signature.asc (198 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

geni
On 2/12/07, David Strauss <[hidden email]> wrote:
> There's simply no way I can discuss this issue with you unless you're
> willing to adopt a more holistic consideration of Wikipedia's needs.
> Your arguments are trapped in the consideration of the *one* idea you
> seem to support, which is restricting Wikipedia content to what may be
> republished in *your* country.
>

There area couple of unclear elements of English and welsh law which
mean that I cannot support that at this time. However given the
percentage of countries that follow English and welsh law it would not
be an entirely irrational approach.

> Nowhere in my post did I mention copyright,

You mentioned fair use

> yet you framed my argument
> as if copyright were its only consideration.

You didn't mention any other in your initial post.

>You straw-manned my
> argument by ignoring aspects of the balance I proposed -- most notably
> ignoring censorship -- that didn't fit nearly within your pet issue.
>

You didn't propose a balance.

> Finally, you invoked a false slippery slope by stating my argument leads
> to hosting Wikipedia in Iran. Only your imaginary, straw-manned version
> of my argument has that flaw.

Not a strawman. Just feeding extreme values into your argument as
presented. A standard technique for testing the validity of models. Of
course you are free to present a modified version of that argument.
You may also wish to take more care in stating your auxiliary
assumptions.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

Andre Engels
In reply to this post by David Strauss-4
2007/2/12, David Strauss <[hidden email]>:

> There's simply no way I can discuss this issue with you unless you're
> willing to adopt a more holistic consideration of Wikipedia's needs.
> Your arguments are trapped in the consideration of the *one* idea you
> seem to support, which is restricting Wikipedia content to what may be
> republished in *your* country.


And isn't that exactly the same thing you are doing, with the only
difference being that your country is also the country where the Wikipedia
servers happen to be?


--
Andre Engels, [hidden email]
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12